Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: schism and communion Message-ID: Date: 20 Sep 89 09:28:57 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 132 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In response to mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon): I think intercommunion between Episcopal and Reformed should be possible. I do understand that problem with Catholics. But aside from them, I think the key is to understand that the sacrament is not a creation of our organization. Christ instituted it. And he gave us no theory of his mode of presence. So in my view the requirements for a valid communion are: (1) that they follow certain formal requirement that follow directly from Christ's command, specifically that they use bread and wine (*), and probably also use some version of the words of Institution; (2) that the liturgy and liturgical theology should make it clear that they intend to be doing the action that Christ commanded. This is exactly parallel to the requirements for a valid baptism: (1) baptism in water using the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", (2) that they intend to be carrying out Christian baptism. I understand that you have a somewhat different view of how Christ is present in Communion than the Baptists do. But as long as a Baptist Communion service meets the requirements for carrying out Christ's commands, it seems that Christ would be present in it in the same way as in yours. In your discussion you clearly have a problem accepting "low church" communions as equivalent to yours. I can see two possible reasons: problems with the status of the ordination of their pastors, and differences in liturgy and liturgical theology. I have just argued that the second should not be an issue. However the status of ordination is harder to deal with. It's always hard for me to know to what extent Episcopaleans are really Protestants, and to what extent they share Catholic positions. (This confusion often seems to extend to the Episcopaleans themselves.) Clearly if you believe that Communion must be carried out by someone who has been ordained by a bishop who is in the apostolic succession, then you cannot accept a "low church" Communion as fully valid. But other than that, I see no reason for problems. So far I've mentioned Baptists, since clearly their idea of Communion is different than yours in significant ways. However you seem to suggest that it is the same for Reformed. I think not. I note that the description of Communion in both your Catechism and Articles of Religion are consistent with the Reformed concept. Your comments seem to imply that the Reformed concept is that of a simple memorial. In fact Calvin, and after him such Reformed confessions as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the Scots Confession teach what I believe is best characterized as "spiritual presence". This is the idea that Christians really do receive Christ's body and blood in communion, but that our contact with his body and blood is through mediation of the Holy Spirit, not through physical contact with the elements. "There is more than one kind of eating. There is corporeal eating whereby food is taken into the mouth, is chewed with the teeth, and swallowed into the stomach. ... There is also a spiritual eating of Christ's body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the Lord's body and blood for us, ... and he causes us to receive him by true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food and drinek, that is, our life.... For even as bodily food and drink not only refresh and strengthen our bodies, but also keep them alive, so the flesh of Christ delivered for us, and his blood shed for us, not only refresh and strengthen out souls, but also preserve them alive, not in so far as they are corporeallly eaten and drunken, but in so far as they are communicated unto us spiritually by the Spirit of God..." (Second Helvetic Confession) We do not believe that the bread and wine of themselves create grace. However under those signs, Christ is really offering himself to us in the sacrament. And of course his presence does bring God's grace. "We grant that this is neither given to us merely at the time nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's Table, have such union with Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that faithful action. ... Therefore, if anyone slanders us by saying that we affirm or believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more they are libelous and speak against the plain facts." (The Scots Confession (1560)) I have no easy way to resolve problems resulting from the Apostolic Succession. I'm sure you know my view: Choice of church polity is not prescribed in the Bible, so it is left to the good sense of the church. There is no command from Christ saying that Communion may only be celebrated by those in the apostolic succession. However obviously Catholics have a different view. I am willing to acknowledge that healing the divisions of the Church is an obligation incumbent on all parties. However it's unrealistic to imply that the situation is completely symmetrical. Protestants have no problems in theory with accepting the Catholic Church as fully equal to our own. We may have problems in practice, and I would be the last to suggest that we are without fault. But Catholics have a problem in dealing with the division that we do not have. They have a concept of church authority that makes it hard for them to treat Protestant churches as equal in -- what should we say -- authorization? -- to the Catholic Church. The basic problem is that we have different ideas of what it would mean to heal the division. My model is that it would mean that all churches acknowledge each other as equally part of Christ's body, and they are all in communion with each other. Protestants cannot identify Christ's body with a specific human organization. I have the feeling that the Catholic model ultimately cannot envision there being several independent churches. and so their model is that a complete healing would mean that we all merge back into one. Perhaps I'm misreading things, but this seems to be the gist of what most of the postings say. How can you heal a break when each side's idea of what it would mean to heal it involves the other side abandoning their basic identity? I'm not sure this is a situation where compromise is possible. It seems to me that the Protestant position has a certain tactical advantage. In some sense the status quo is with us. There are many churches. The pressure on Catholics to see other churches as part of Christ's body is very clear. Yet the further they go in seeing Protestant churches as authorized agents of Christ, the closer they are to accepting the Protestant model. On our side, Protestants can fit Catholics into our framework with no problem. Of course tactical advantage does not necessarily mean truth... ----- (*) I use the term wine broadly, to include unfermented grape juice. There are enough people who have problems with use of alcohol that it makes sense to be slightly, er, flexible in our definition of wine so as to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of these brothers and sisters.